[Salopbaggie]

But do we need another striker and the associated costs which in turn limits the money in the kitty to get the players in the positions where they are needed?

The problem IMO does not lie in the quality of strikers we have, it lies in the quality of play to get the strikers into a position where they can strike. If we had a line up of £40 million plus strikers would they be able to do any better with a hoofed ball from one of our 6 centre backs,  I doubt it.

IMO we are desperate for a creative midfielder (and a couple of full backs), someone who can get the strikers into a position where they can actually do something with the ball.  We also have some half decent wingers in the squad who possible could get our strikers into a dangerous positions, but they struggle to get a cross into the box for the strikers from the bench.  We would rather play 3 defensive midfielders at home.

We are currently averaging 2.8 shots on target per game and have a goal ratio of 0.6 goals per game.  Now I know we still have the majority of the season to go, but for those who say this is not relegation form ("Form" being the operative word and yes Chelsea's current form is relegation form), Burnley's form at the end of last season which saw them finish bottom was 3.29 shots per game and an goal ratio of .74 per game.

Bottom line is if we do not do something to change our style of play why would our situation and form change? remember we only just beat Stoke despite them playing with 9 men for pretty much half the game, and we still only had 5 shots on target, this of course makes our 2.8 shots per game average look even worse as we did manage 5 in that game.

Things need to change, rant over   COYB